Do you believe in the death penalty?

[Thrashia]

Yes.

[Techno-Soviet]

No. It never solves anything short of revenge.

[Secruss]

I would consider death a fairly good deterrence.

[Muravyets]

Loose silicone injections into the brain are a cheap and effective means to an end. Only child molestors, rapists, and murders deserve it, not minorities. I don't believe in just killing minorities who do such heinous crimes, all people are created equal. Plus, I am at least five minorities. So tell me, what are you on about?

At the moment, I'm on about wishing people would read the damn thread. As I said at least twice (not including now), the death penalty is applied unfairly along racial/ethnic and other lines of discrimination following the bigotries of the group in power. THAT is the reason I oppose it. I fail to see what difference the method of execution would make -- an unjust execution does not become suddenly okay because it was cheap and effective.

EDIT: And yes, I realize that you say YOU don't think the death penalty should be applied unfairly -- but it is.

[Parthenon]

Rope + Tree + Back of courthouse 10 minutes after the trial = Cheaper and more of a deterrence

[Muravyets]

I would consider death a fairly good deterrence.

You would be a statistically insignificant anomaly, as decades of comparison between societies that have the DP and those that don't, and those that have switched back and forth, indicate that the DP has no deterrent effect whatsoever on violent crime.

[South East Europe]

Do you mean not killing minorities period? Or not killing minorities just on the basis of their minoritydom(KKK/Nazi style)?

The second part.

[South East Europe]

a shotgun shell to the back of the head is quick, easy, and reliable.

Bullets are too expensive for the likes of murderers and rapists, plus loose silicone injections into the brain are just as effective. After proper anastesia.

[Sonnveld]

I support the death penalty in the case of flagrantly inhuman crimes — such as mass homicide, child rape, serial homicide, torture/mayhem involved, terrorism.

My personal view is that the death penalty stands between society and modern day Countess Elizabeth Bathorys. Some people are just wired *wrong*; anti-social tendencies are hardwired into them.

I present the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. Towards the end, he had a penchant for drilling heads and injecting hydrochloric acid into his victims' brains. At the very least, this is in flagrant violation of America's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. No matter how much someone upsets you, you have no right to do things like that here. By humanitarian standards, it's an atrocity in microcosm. By the standards of a professional killer, this method of killing is just stupid. Whichever way you slice it (sorry), it's got WRONG written all over it, as does the person that perpetrates it.

There's an argument that the Human Race is overpopulating and outstripping the carrying capacity of our resources. Most people say that abortion is a piss-poor means of population control; but given the preponderance of evidence that we're overpopulated, wouldn't one agree that the sector of viciously mentally ill — the Jeffrey Dahmers, Elizabeth Bathorys and suchlike of the world — would be a fair candidate for culling?

State shouldn't have that much power? Hmmm. Libertarian point taken, but have you ever seen a lynch mob in action? A bullet to the brain and/or heart, three IV tubes quietly leaking their contents into the subject's venous system, or a quick slice with a sword or axe seem to me a much more dignified, cleaner and gentler death than a mob of outraged people would deal out. Or even what the convict dished out to get himself to that end.

That said, I believe that in the case of American legal system handing down the death penalty, there should be an automatic appeal process granted to all, but the number of appeals should be limited to one. No more "I sentence you to death" and the con sits, festers, and eats on the taxpayer tab on Death Row for 32 years.

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

In theory, I believe in the death penalty, in practice, I don't.

There are some crimes, serial rape, serial killing, raping children, torture, extreme child abuse (resulting in the death, maiming and/or severe mental disability) among them, that merit death (some of them by slow torture imho).

If the legal system could actually be trusted to prescribe death only in the case of these (and other) extreme crimes and then only after exhaustive investigation, proving conclusively and without doubt that the perpetrator was indeed guilty, then I would feel no qualms about the death sentence.

Unfortunately, judges have been known to give the death sentence to scared kids who, in the commission of a crime like robbery (certainly deserving of a prison sentence), accidentally discharged a gun and killed someone - there was no planning, no malice and no intention to kill (merely to frighten).

As long as there is inequity in the imposition of the death sentence, then it can't be allowed. And since no judicial system, no matter how hard it tries and how many protections are built in, is completely fair and equitable, that means the death sentence cannot be allowed. This is just an opinion and I'm sure there are some people, victims of crime perhaps, or jaded cops or just good, hard-nosed letter of the law types who will disagree.

[Dyakovo]

No. It never solves anything short of revenge.

Actually, it guarantees no recidivism...

[Kostemetsia]

There are some crimes that certainly deserve death. Serial killers and child rapists deserve death a thousand, perhaps a million times over for their depredations.

That said, just because they feel they're fully justified in doing it to us doesn't mean we're fully justified in doing it to them. They don't have the right to deal out death. Nor do we.

[Muravyets]

No. It never solves anything short of revenge.

Actually, it guarantees no recidivism...

So does life without parole -- at least, it's enough of a guarantee unburdened by bad social side effects, to satisfy me.

[Atreath]

No. It never solves anything short of revenge.

Actually, it guarantees no recidivism...

So does life without parole -- at least, it's enough of a guarantee unburdened by bad social side effects, to satisfy me.

As another poster mentioned "death by confinement". Its slow, and torturous, which to me screams of hypocrisy from those who claim a "higher moral standard".

My question is, why give the government such power at all?

[Muravyets]

As another poster mentioned "death by confinement". Its slow, and torturous, which to me screams of hypocrisy from those who claim a "higher moral standard".

Hypocrisy would only apply if I had said I oppose the death penalty because it's cruel to the convicted criminals. Kindly quote me saying that and you'll have a point. Otherwise, go find someone who does say that and score your point on them. But don't waste your time waiting for me to defend a position I never held or an argument I never made.

My question is, why give the government such power at all?

Do you mean why have prisons? Why have a criminal law system?

[Atreath]

As another poster mentioned "death by confinement". Its slow, and torturous, which to me screams of hypocrisy from those who claim a "higher moral standard".

Hypocrisy would only apply if I had said I oppose the death penalty because it's cruel to the convicted criminals. Kindly quote me saying that and you'll have a point. Otherwise, go find someone who does say that and score your point on them. But don't waste your time waiting for me to defend a position I never held or an argument I never made.

I was referring to the "death by confinement" quote. The rest is all my conclusion. My apologies if it appeared to mislead.

My question is, why give the government such power at all?

Do you mean why have prisons? Why have a criminal law system?[/quote]

No. Why give governments the authority to kill people, be it quickly or slowly.

[Jiraua]

Of course I believe in the death penalty - I have absolute proof that it exists, save in the case of a mistake of epistemological proportions.

[Muravyets]

I was referring to the "death by confinement" quote. The rest is all my conclusion. My apologies if it appeared to mislead.

Okay, I see. I didn't pay attention to the original "death by confinement" remarks because that is unrelated to my position on the issue.

No. Why give governments the authority to kill people, be it quickly or slowly.

I don't think governments should have the authority to kill people as punishment for crimes. But I would dispute any argument that claims that imprisoning someone for life amounts to killing them just because they are in prison when their life ends. To kill someone, you have to cause their death directly, in a manner that causes them to die as a direct result of the action. The fact that there are life-time prisoners who die of old age, at a very old age, is strong evidence that merely imprisoning someone is not the same as taking a direct action to cause their death.

[Atreath]

No. Why give governments the authority to kill people, be it quickly or slowly.

I don't think governments should have the authority to kill people as punishment for crimes. But I would dispute any argument that claims that imprisoning someone for life amounts to killing them just because they are in prison when their life ends. To kill someone, you have to cause their death directly, in a manner that causes them to die as a direct result of the action. The fact that there are life-time prisoners who die of old age, at a very old age, is strong evidence that merely imprisoning someone is not the same as taking a direct action to cause their death.

When you put someone in prison for life without the possibility for parole. Their life is effectively over. It is no different than killing them as far as I'm concerned. Frankly at that point whether they are still breathing or not is a formality.

[Jiraua]

But I would dispute any argument that claims that imprisoning someone for life amounts to killing them just because they are in prison when their life ends. To kill someone, you have to cause their death directly, in a manner that causes them to die as a direct result of the action. The fact that there are life-time prisoners who die of old age, at a very old age, is strong evidence that merely imprisoning someone is not the same as taking a direct action to cause their death.

How would this relate to the ancient Roman punishment for Vestal Virgins who no longer met that second requirement? Roman authorities would seal them in caves by rolling large boulders before the entrance, and despite having a store of food and water, the young woman being punished would be dead inside of two months. Is this a death penalty?

[Muravyets]

When you put someone in prison for life without the possibility for parole. Their life is effectively over. It is no different than killing them as far as I'm concerned. Frankly at that point whether they are still breathing or not is a formality.

"As far as you are concerned" is really of no interest to me. To kill someone still requires a direct action that results in their death, cause and effect. You cannot make a logically sound assertion that imprisonment is a direct cause of death. Therefore I reject the argument that imprisonment is a form of killing someone.

[Ashmoria]

there was a man in ireland,in a city called galway, he killed someone,while on trial for it he raped somone,then he got out of prison after 7 years, and killed and raped a switz student,an only child,who was only in ireland for a day, do you think this man can ever change? what kind of mind is capable of doing that?, you'd expect better from a vicious animal.

i think he is an excellent candidate for life in prison without possibility of parole.

[Muravyets]

How would this relate to the ancient Roman punishment for Vestal Virgins who no longer met that second requirement? Roman authorities would seal them in caves by rolling large boulders before the entrance, and despite having a store of food and water, the young woman being punished would be dead inside of two months. Is this a death penalty?

EDIT: You give us no indication of how large the store of food was. You give us no indication of exactly how the prisoners died. You give us no indication of many other important circumstances.

Denial of food. Denial of health care. Imprisonment in dangerous/unhealthy conditions such as excessive cold (very common in caves). Total isolation from all human contact. All of these are abusive treatments that are currently illegal in many modern nations precisely because they are so abusive to human beings as to directly cause permanent damage up to and including death.

Of course, this has nothing to do with life imprisonment where the prisoner is given regular meals, health care, social interaction, etc.

EDIT2: On the above outlined grounds, I maintain that mere imprisonment is not equivalent to a death penalty.

[JuNii]

a shotgun shell to the back of the head is quick, easy, and reliable.

Bullets are too expensive for the likes of murderers and rapists, plus loose silicone injections into the brain are just as effective. After proper anastesia.

wait...
you consider bullets too expensive yet will pay for an anesthesiologist, the anesthesia, the silicone and the doctor to administer said Silicone?

[Muravyets]

a shotgun shell to the back of the head is quick, easy, and reliable.

Bullets are too expensive for the likes of murderers and rapists, plus loose silicone injections into the brain are just as effective. After proper anastesia.

wait...
you consider bullets too expensive yet will pay for an anesthesiologist, the anesthesia, the silicone and the doctor to administer said Silicone?

Kinda suggests he hasn't really given it all that much thought, don't it?